[Numpy-discussion] DVCS at PyCon
Fri Apr 10 02:43:25 CDT 2009
Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:45 PM, David Cournapeau
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>> It is maybe easier to learn how to work with different clones, but
>>> once you start working with lots of patches and you need to reclone
>>> all the time, then it's the wrong approach to work, as it takes lots
>>> of time to copy the whole repository on the disk.
This is simply wrong. Mercurial uses hard links for cloning a repo that
is on the same disk, so it is faster and much more space-efficient than
copying the files. But if you do want named branches in a given repo,
you can have that also with hg. Granted, it has not always been part of
hg, but it is now. Same with rebasing and transplanting.
Now, I know that your (speaking to Ondrej) project switched from hg to
git, and you have provided some useful insight as to why. I also
understand that there are substantive differences between the two, with
advantages and disadvantages. But I don't think it follows that numpy
(or matplotlib, eventually, I hope) necessarily should move to git
if/when a move to a DVCS is decided upon. It is possible that hg might
be a better fit--a better compromise--for present *and* *potential*
*future* contributors to numpy, scipy, and matplotlib.
>> Yes, *I* know how to use git, and I agree with you, I vastly prefer git
>> branch handling to bzr branch handling. *I* find working with GUI for
>> VCS a real PITA. But I am not the only numpy developer, that's why the
>> feedback from people like Josef with a totally different workflow than
>> me is valuable - much more than people like us who are unix geeks :)
Speaking to David: is git branch handling vastly preferable to both of
the branch styles available in hg?
Speaking to Josef: does tortoise-hg provide a satisfactory windows gui,
from your standpoint?
> Yes, definitely.
> Numpy-discussion mailing list
More information about the Numpy-discussion